Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Have you ever heard "eight-to-two" used for "eighty-to-twenty" or "four-to-one"?[edit]
From Ann Coulter's ¡Adiós, América!: "‘‘Hispanics will never vote for Republicans unless they pass amnesty.’’ First of all moron Republicans, if they can't vote, they can't vote against you. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes. Second Hispanics who are citizens don't care about amnesty. They're already in. They vote eight-to-two for the Democrats because they like big government". (This was transcribed from the audio book so apologies for any mistakes). But what's with "eight-to-two"? I've heard "eighty-to-twenty", or "four-to-one", but never "eight-to-two". Could she actually be reading what is in fact a typo? (She's "narrating" her own book). Plus, I think the real proportion is more like eight-to-one, so that too makes me wonder. (In the United States presidential election, 2012 the ratio was about seven-to-three). ContactBasemetalhere 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is she was thinking "eight out of ten," which would be a much more common way to phrase it, but then either she reworded it awkwardly or it was poorly revised during editing so that the sentence could start with "they vote" in order to create a parallelism with "they like" later on. And just for the record, even eight to two is actually an exaggeration. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the context? If she was referring to a state election in which there are 10 candidates, her breakdown of "eight-to-two" actually makes sense. Of course, if it's other than 10, simple division should have rendered it as "four-to-one". Akld guy (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I provided above all the context that seemed relevant. It is a completely general statement regarding the Hispanic vote. Everyone so far seems to agree that expressing a ratio as "eight-to-two" seems a bit eccentric. And why not "twelve-to-three"? Of course, like you say, in specific cases, the context could explain such a choice, but I promise this is not one such case. Elmer Clark may be correct to suggest that this may have started as "eight out of ten vote for etc." and then got revised into "they vote eight-to-two for etc." after a rewrite. Also could the fact that "eighty-to-twenty" is used (because here we're talking percentages) have made this sound less awkward than say "twelve-to-three"? ContactBasemetalhere 00:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of the political and ex post facto editing of the OP's question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question is tendentious. There'd be no question here had it been Katie Couric who'd said seven to three, versus making it a percent or offering, say, 21 to 49. There's absolutely no chance anyone who's successfully finished the sixth grade misunderstood her. Where's the request for references on an encyclopedic matter here? Just a request for opinion and debte, I see. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual numbers and source have nothing to do with the question. This is a question regarding a matter of usage. No different than, say, "Is it considered incorrect to mix American and English spellings in a text?". A precise reference would be great of course, but even without one, it is still valuable to know what the linguistic intuition of the respondents is. Many of the threads at the language desk amount to that, and the responses are still useful because the respondents act as linguistic informants. To generalize the question: Is it at all usual (except in the case of percentages) that ratios are expressed as fractions which haven't been been reduced to their simplest form. The Google Ngram Viewer gives this but I don't know how reliable those results are. Surely "eighty to twenty" must be more common than that. The WP page Fraction (mathematics) gives as an example "every two-tenths of a mile". Same thing. Why not "every one-fifth of a mile"? Is there a reason the editor has chosen the former? ContactBasemetalhere 09:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a usage question, then why mention Ann Coulter? Why not ask if Kenyan-born presidents normally think the US has 57 states? Of course people use the ratio eight to two. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wanted to give the exact source and context. In fact one of the respondents did ask "what was the context?". Except for that, neither Ann Coulter, nor what the ratio actually stood for had any importance. Can you give an actual example of someone using eight to two in writing, or more generally an example of someone using a non-reduced fraction (e.g. fifteen to five instead of three to one) to express a ratio? ContactBasemetalhere 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you struck out part of your question and added the part about the 2012 US presidential election after I had posted my response. Diff [1] but you didn't sign the change, so the original timestamp remained. Akld guy (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct but I'm not sure what you're driving at. ContactBasemetalhere 20:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under my original post, you said, "No, I provided above all the context that seemed relevant." Adding context after someone replies without mentioning the fact or timestamping the change is deceitful. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Deceitful" is not a charge you're entitled to make, Akld guy. It breaches WP:NPA. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, just for Jack: adding context after being asked for it, and then rebuking me for asking, IS DECEITFUL. Akld guy (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with an above post. She was essentially saying "eight out of ten". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it. You guys are saying the "eight to two" ratio doesn't sound too weird because one is essentially counting in tens (8 + 2 = 10). The same way "eighty to twenty" is ok because we're counting in hundreds (80 + 20 = 100). But let's say "twelve to three" or "sixteenth to four" now those would be unexpected ways of expressing the "four to one" ratio, unless I assume there is a specific context, e.g. a classroom with fifteenth pupils out of whom twelve passed and three didn't. In all other cases the expected way to express the ratio in words would be by taking the simplest fraction. That's what you're saying, right? ContactBasemetalhere 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
